Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 23 June 2010
38 Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Transport the meetings he has had with CIE and the Railway Procurement Agency regarding the delays in the DART Interconnector until 2018; the reason for the delay; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26645/10]
Amharc ar fhreagra70 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Transport if he has been briefed by Irish Rail since its unexpected announcement that the critical Dublin rail interconnector project will be delayed by at least three years until 2018; his views on the manner in which the delay was announced; if he has satisfied himself with the Irish Rail’s explanation for the delay on this project; his further views on whether same could be expedited; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26824/10]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to answer Questions Nos. 38 and 70 together.
Since 1 December 2009, the implementation of the DART underground project is a matter under the remit of the National Transport Authority, NTA. Officials from my Department and the NTA hold monthly monitoring meetings. Following a request from my Department, the NTA arranged for a presentation by the DART underground team from Irish Rail to coincide with the monthly meeting on 25 May 2010. Irish Rail advised that the change in the DART underground timetable is driven by practical and technical considerations.
The first consideration is that the railway order application may take longer than originally planned. This is based on the experience of metro north. The second consideration is that construction and testing are now estimated to take longer than earlier projected. This includes allowing for the extension of the project from Heuston to Inchicore and also arises from a decision to use two tunnel boring machines instead of four. This change to fewer tunnel boring machines lessens the environmental impact of the project and reduces costs considerably.
Irish Rail also advised that these are conservative estimates on the timeframe and it is possible that the PPP company may make substantial improvements to this programme by, for example, using innovative techniques. It is also possible An Bord Pleanála can reduce the time taken to consider the railway order application, having regard to its experience on metro north. The Government remains committed to the earliest possible start-up date and the speediest possible delivery of this project consistent with securing best value for money. It will continue to pursue all available opportunities to shorten the delivery timescale.
Can the Minister answer this question clearly? The last day we had Question Time in the Dáil with the Minister, he said he was not aware of the statement by Irish Rail that the DART interconnector timetable had been significantly altered. Who did the Minister meet from CIE that morning? Is it true he was briefed on this issue by CIE that morning?
No, that is not true. The subject never came up. I met the board members and the chief executive of CIE. I try to meet the boards of companies under the aegis of the Department of Transport once a year and it was such a meeting. In the middle of the day, I became aware of a statement issued by CIE and Deputy O'Dowd raised the matter in the House. Deputy O'Dowd suggested CIE had changed policy and decided the opening of the project would be delayed until 2018. Deputy O'Dowd asked if this was Government policy and I replied that it was not. It was not Government policy then but it is a fact that in the design phase of this project, it was estimated the DART underground could be operational within four and a half years of construction. However, when the project went into the detailed design phase, the company involved estimated the construction phase, including testing and commissioning, would take six years to complete. That is where the matter arose. It did not arise because of a change of policy or because CIE decided it would not follow Government policy.
Government policy on this issue is that it is delivered in the shortest timeframe possible, and we are now informed this is the shortest timeframe possible.
Apart from the board, did the Minister meet any officials or employees of Irish Rail that day and, if so, could he tell us who they were and the jobs they held within that organisation?
On the same point, the Minister almost threw a wobbler here at the end of questions that day. It seemed as if he had been left in the dark by CIE. That is certainly the impression he gave us, and the House. How does that tally with the answer he gave to Deputy O'Dowd?
The Minister gave us some information but the public expected that metro north with the Railway Procurement Agency, RPA, and an interconnector with Irish Rail would go in tandem, yet we now find that metro north is much further down the road, so to speak, than the interconnector. Has the Minister done any analysis as to the reason that should be the case? The Minister then tells us that for environmental reasons they will use two boring machines rather than four but this would appear to be a significant reason for the delay. How will we handle this major project if it is not done in tandem with metro north? In terms of the stations — St. Stephen's Green and so on — we have shared facilities. The RPA is building a box, as it calls it, for the interconnector but it seems to be haphazard. Has the Minister confidence in Irish Rail that it can deliver this major project?
On the big dig, we heard about the Broombridge line this morning. The statue of Daniel O'Connell, our great liberator, is due to be removed from O'Connell Street in the near future to facilitate these works. Can the Minister give us an updated report now from the big dig committee? What is the position regarding the big dig committee? It appears that, because of the slowness of the interconnector, we may be getting into a position where we will have chaos in the centre of Dublin for over a decade rather than a smart building programme over three or four years, which would get it done quickly. Incidentally, I understand there is no chance of having metro north completed by the anniversary of the seminal event in 1916 which led to the foundation of our State. Work will be ongoing on it when, hopefully, we will all be present outside the GPO for that ceremony. It all seems very vague. The Minister appeared to be flabbergasted that day and I wonder what happened? What did they do to him?
Whether I was flabbergasted is the Deputy's interpretation. I made it clear there was no policy change because the question put to me by the Deputy was that the statement CIE had made had changed the policy. I made it clear that CIE does not make policy; the Department and the Minister make policy. As I said at the time, I was not aware of the statement before it was made, which is not the normal protocol with CIE on operational matters such as this one and, therefore, from that point of view, that was a breach of protocol as far as I was concerned but I was not flabbergasted. I was at pains to point out that it was Government that decided the policy on this issue. The Deputy might want to put down a specific question on that.
If I meet somebody when I arrive to visit a State agency, even the person on reception, I will always say hello to them. My recollection is that is what I did that morning. I probably met a few personnel from Heuston Station. I met with the board. A number of officials were waiting to brief the board on whatever was on the agenda on that particular day. They were the people I met on the day. I had conversations with all of them but I did not have meetings with people and discuss interconnectors or anything else.
